Introductionīefore I get to the actual results, here's a bit of a preamble about the 'what and why' of this, as well as a few disclaimers. I should also note that I've written eBook guides about most of these options, and I've included links where applicable. The term 'best' is often quite misleading because as I said, it's often subjective. In this context, though, I'm talking about what gives you the most natural-looking, and the most artefact-free results when working with Fuji raw files. There are, of course, more things that can enter into the equation, such as workflow, ease of use, and cost. Bun in this context, I'm talking purely about technical image quality. I'm basing this on processing thousands of Fuji files in many different applications. It also depends heavily on the type of image, how you prefer to process, and so on. While I believe that much of this is subjective, there are also technical standards, which I think are not, and while different people might have different standards, for me, the image should look clean, and un-processed. It should not look too 'digital' but instead should have the quality to pass an editor in a magazine or submission to a stock agency. This is the standard for which I would aim. I also have a minimum set of requirements. It must be a useable solution for working with lots of images in a project, and it must support Fuji film simulation modes at a minimum.

I understand, having done several variations of this article at this point, that no matter what I write someone somewhere will take issue with this and disagree. If you do things differently, that's fine.

Iridient developer film simulations